RETIRED: Creation or Evolustionists theory

[Kramer!]

System Notice: This thread content has been automatically archived from another thread which reached post limit, and will be preserved for reference and archival purposes. The discussion should continue in the original thread (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=98130)

Which do you believe in the age of the Earth?

For me it is creation...so many facts to disprove evolutionists

[Squeezy]

I don't know that I believe fully in either. But I sure as shit don't think creationism should be taught in a public school science class. I have absolutely no problem with them discussing it in religous studies.

[Patchou]

gopackgo, there was absolutely no need to start a new thread. They are so many threads about it. Please do at least one search before sytarting a new thread.
Which do you believe in the age of the Earth?What do you mean by the "in age of the Earth"

For me it is creation...so many facts to disprove evolutionistsCare to point out some?

In addition,
“Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all.” Herbert Spencer.

[murzilka]

...In addition,
“Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all.” Herbert Spencer.

:lol: Right in the spot. Nice shot, Patchou!

[120 Minute Man]

Wow, that Herbert Spencer must be the smartest guy alive... let's all drop what we are doing and believe anything he says!!!

C'mon, it'll be fun. Wait, I have a better idea...

There are far too many holes in the theory of evolution for it to hold even an ounce of water. - Bernard Lane

See I just disproved your opinion by posting a quote.

[Danman114]

Wow, that Herbert Spencer must be the smartest guy alive... let's all drop what we are doing and believe anything he says!!!

C'mon, it'll be fun. Wait, I have a better idea...

There are far too many holes in the theory of evolution for it to hold even an ounce of water. - Bernard Lane

See I just disproved your opinion by posting a quote.
How bout disproving the opinion by posting a fact?

[fbskiracer]

albeit I'm a scientist but the striking correlations in fossil record practically prove evolution anyway. I mean where is cromagnon man anyway?

Plus as a scientist, the DNA correlations of different species dirrect correlations among similar genes. If you don't believe in evolution, how can you beleive in pharmaceuticals or drugs that were developed becuase of the way they work in animals/bacteria/fungi. All information points to a common ancestor.

Plus both creationism and evolution are both theories and will always remain a theory because neither will get the research dollars or support to prove them as scientific fact.

[120 Minute Man]

How bout disproving the opinion by posting a fact?
Sorry you don't understand what sarcasm is... I was using the same type of arguement that Patchou used. All he used was some quote that isn't a fact at all.

How about being a little quicker next time?

[Patchou]

Wow, that Herbert Spencer must be the smartest guy alive... :lmao: :lmao: he died 102 years ago.There are far too many holes in the theory of evolution for it to hold even an ounce of water. - Bernard Lane

See I just disproved your opinion by posting a quote.What did you disprove? Did you understand the quote? Apparently not.

Creation has no facts at all to support its theory. You answered the quotes by saying evolution is “full of holes” and that’s the same obtuse comment made by the OP, which subsequently led to the posting of Spencer quote.

Try again.

The funniest is that even after Danman114 clue, you still didn’t get it.
How about some facts?

[Marshall]

How about some facts?Look in a radio telescope at a quasar that's 13 billion light years away. I'd say that disproves the Creationists' estimate that Earth is 10,000 years old by six orders of magnitude

Or, forget about the farthest galaxies, how about the closest, which are visible in the Southern Hemisphere? The nearest galaxies to Earth are 25,000 light-years away, and this can be easily computed... the fact that their light is here shows that the estimates of the Creationists is wrong as well.

[stimpy]

Look in a radio telescope at a quasar that's 13 billion light years away. I'd say that disproves the Creationists' estimate that Earth is 10,000 years old by six orders of magnitude

Or, forget about the farthest galaxies, how about the closest, which are visible in the Southern Hemisphere? The nearest galaxies to Earth are 25,000 light-years away, and this can be easily computed... the fact that their light is here shows that the estimates of the Creationists is wrong as well.

If someone can create the world and everything in and around it. I hardly think that creating the path of light that leads to a quasar (or anything else) is somehow not possible as well.

I don't see how "light-years" proves anything. You can DL countless videos showing scientific backing of the world being only several thousand years old. Oh sure, there are plenty of cukes out there - but they're on BOTH sides of this one. Wild stuff here: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

Enjoy the ride, when it's done it either is or it isn't. ;) :lightnin:

[mmathis]

I don't see how "light-years" proves anything. You can DL countless videos showing scientific backing of the world being only several thousand years old. Oh sure, there are plenty of cukes out there - but they're on BOTH sides of this one. Wild stuff here: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

Do you even know what a light year is?

You may be able to download videos showing "scientific" backing of the world being only several thousand years old, but every time you look into the sky (telescope helps) you are seeing observational evidence of the universe being much older than that (the Andromeda galaxy is 2 million light years away, which means the universe is at least 2 million years old - otherwise we wouldn't see Andromeda).

[stimpy]

Do you even know what a light year is?

You may be able to download videos showing "scientific" backing of the world being only several thousand years old, but every time you look into the sky (telescope helps) you are seeing observational evidence of the universe being much older than that (the Andromeda galaxy is 2 million light years away, which means the universe is at least 2 million years old - otherwise we wouldn't see Andromeda).

1 lightyear = 9.4605284 × 10(15 power) meters
(A lightyear is the distance light travels in free spaces during a year.)

And why wouldn't we see it? I thought you where suggesting that we wouldn't see it because the light didn't have time to get here.

If someone has the power to create the world/universe, I'm mearly suggesting it could be created just as easily with the light already here (In fact just such a creation is mentioned in most "theories"). Why would such a creator suddenly be bound by our understanding of the laws of physics?

[murzilka]

...If someone has the power to create the world/universe, I'm mearly suggesting it could be created just as easily with the light already here (In fact just such a creation is mentioned in most "theories"). Why would such a creator suddenly be bound by our understanding of the laws of physics?

Well, in phylosophical sense I can agree with your argument, but in reality that's barely possible. And again the further you follow with scientific evidences of Creationism the deeper the facts you would have to back up by: "It was just created this way 10k years ago and then it evolved".

Besides that every theory is only valuable as long as it gives something to people. Sorry, but Creationism does not offer much like: drug discovery, gene therapy and spaceships. Theory of Evolution does, so which one do you use to do science, research and development?

albeit I'm a scientist....
fbskiracer, you are young scientist, who turned 21 this year just couple weeks ago. Do you have your B.S. degree or not yet?

[mmathis]

If someone has the power to create the world/universe, I'm mearly suggesting it could be created just as easily with the light already here (In fact just such a creation is mentioned in most "theories"). Why would such a creator suddenly be bound by our understanding of the laws of physics?

So this creator created the world in such a way that it appears as if its billions of years older than it really is? That's quite deceitful

[Captal]

I just read a great book on this subject called The Science of God (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/076790303X/qid=1115412257/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-7253409-2011148?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Was the universe created in 6 days or 15 billion years? Schroeder's response is... both

Once again as humans we get so caught up on our perspective- some creationists (usually termed young Earth creationists) believe that the universe is ~6000 years old because when you add up the ages of the geneologies in the Bible you get ~6000 years (actually it's close to 5700 years after Adam right now, but I digress). These people go along the theory "why can't we just believe what the Bible says- that the universe was created in 6 days and it's been 6000 years since Adam so the whole universe must be 6000 years old." (no matter that the Earth wasn't even around for the first few days of the creation story)

Schroeder argues that it's all a matter of perspective- yes the Bibles says the universe was created in 6 days, but from where were those 6 days counted? Think it doesn't make a difference? That 6 days on Earth are the same as 6 days anywhere else? Einstein says you're wrong.

Einstein's law of relativity states that as velocity or gravity increase, time slows down. This has been proven using lightwaves from the sun- the sun has 30x the gravity of the Earth- by measuring the length of the lightwaves from the sun scientists have proven that the sun experiences 67 less seconds per year than we do on Earth. So what happens if you increase the gravity by a LOT- say packing the entire universe into a small speck- like when the big bag happens? Then time slows WAY down. Schroeder says if you place a clock right where the big bang occured, you'll see than one "day" really took a lot longer than 24 hours- the first day took ~7 billion years he says. Then as the universe expanded the amount of time a "day" took is less and less until the last day- the sixth day- Adam was created. Time from Adam forward has remained constant because gravity on Earth has remained constant.

I've done a poor job explaining it but I think his theory is valid- there is much much more evidence in the book I posted- I read it and thought "wow, that's so simple yet makes so much sense." Anyway, I believe science proves design and I believe that science points towards a Creator.

Anyway I thought the Cambrian explosion pretty much disproved macro evolution (evolution between species). I'm still a believer of micro evolution (evolution within a species) because science has proven it.

[stimpy]

So this creator created the world in such a way that it appears as if its billions of years older than it really is? That's quite deceitful

Yes. Although I wouldn't call it that, I can only offer this (although I think it is somewhat off the main topic, I believe it addresses this specific one ei. deceit):
If I can prove scientificly that a chair will support my weight, does it take any faith what-so-ever to sit on it?
Convercely, how much faith would it take to sit on a chair that I could scientificly prove would not support me?

I'm not a faith-healer or anything like that but we all know of such events and demonstrations (not with chairs, but cuts that don't bleed .... all because of faith). The point is, I would not be deceitful if I tell you to sit on the second chair and if you have faith it will support you (kind of like walking on water) as long as I could back it up. But then again I don't think parents are deceatful when they test there children (sometimes tricking them) either, but that's me.

Thanks for your time, it still kills me to find these forums on a web sight focused on saving $$$s I truly love it :)

[stimpy]

... 6 days on Earth are the same as 6 days anywhere else? Einstein says you're wrong.

Einstein's law of relativity states that as velocity or gravity increase, time slows down.

:iagree: Now you're on to something. Most people can't remove there thinking from the constraints of time. Time as we know it is measured by our trip around the sun, in both theories there was a time before the sun. So was time as we know it also created?

We need to bring back the Twilight Zone :thumbup: , they always dealt with this kind of stuff.
:wave: (I'm gone for the weekend)

[mmathis]

Einstein's law of relativity states that as velocity or gravity increase, time slows down. This has been proven using lightwaves from the sun- the sun has 30x the gravity of the Earth- by measuring the length of the lightwaves from the sun scientists have proven that the sun experiences 67 less seconds per year than we do on Earth. So what happens if you increase the gravity by a LOT- say packing the entire universe into a small speck- like when the big bag happens? Then time slows WAY down. Schroeder says if you place a clock right where the big bang occured, you'll see than one "day" really took a lot longer than 24 hours- the first day took ~7 billion years he says. Then as the universe expanded the amount of time a "day" took is less and less until the last day- the sixth day- Adam was created. Time from Adam forward has remained constant because gravity on Earth has remained constant...

General relativity breaks down at small distances, like those of a black hole or the Big Bang. Ordinarily, small distances are governed by quantum mechanics. However, because of the large energy (mass) iinvolved, there is a problem. When you try to apply both general relativity (because of the large mass/energy) and quantum mechanics (because of the small distances involved), you get answers/predictions that can be off by as much as 120 orders of magnitude! Thus, it is not correct to say that the first "day" of the universe took 7 billion years, because we need a different theory to fully explain exactly what was going on right after the Big Bang (what physicists are terming a Grand Unified Theory or Theory of Everything).

In addition, time only slows down as measured by observers outside the system. Since the universe is the system, any sense of time that "we" feel in it (the early, Big Bang universe) is the only time there is. If you fell towards a black hole, your watch would continue to mark the time just as it does on Earth (in normal, 1 second intervals). But your friend on the spaceship would see your watch mark the time much more slowly - 1 second on your watch could take 10 seconds, 10 minutes on his watch (and eventually, it would appear to your friend that your watch would stop - but you would not notice anything out of the ordinary, as far as time is concerned).

[Captal]

In addition, time only slows down as measured by observers outside the system. Since the universe is the system, any sense of time that "we" feel in it (the early, Big Bang universe) is the only time there is.

I agree, but the creation story in the Bible is written from the viewpoint of an observer outside the universe. (aka God)

If you are at all interested in this kind of stuff I highly recommend that book as he digs deep into the quantum mechanics and physics of it all (he's a physicist).

[dalokgawd]

For sheer curiosity, I was wondering if any of the people in the Podium who believe in Creationism over Evolution could explain some of the following points:

1) The fossil record full of plants and animals (including primitive humans) from millions of years ago to thousands of years ago.

2) Carbon dating of fossils/rocks/etc that show the Earth has been around for hundreds of millions of years.

3) Ice core samples taken from Antarctica and The Arctic which show the same.

4) Farmers from 1,000 years ago up to even modern times using natural selection to breed plants and animals for certain traits and characteristics (forced evolution of a sort).

5) Genetic similarities between different species showing that they at some point came from a common ancestor.

If the only answer you can come up with is "God made it that way", that's fine. I just am curious as to how much evidence can be explained away by Creationists in their zeal to disbelieve evolution.

[XXnarg]

This thread is evolving. Or, is it part of a master plan?

:lmao:

[dalokgawd]

No takers to my questions above? Come on? No one?

[Captal]

For sheer curiosity, I was wondering if any of the people in the Podium who believe in Creationism over Evolution could explain some of the following points:

1) The fossil record full of plants and animals (including primitive humans) from millions of years ago to thousands of years ago.

2) Carbon dating of fossils/rocks/etc that show the Earth has been around for hundreds of millions of years.

3) Ice core samples taken from Antarctica and The Arctic which show the same.

4) Farmers from 1,000 years ago up to even modern times using natural selection to breed plants and animals for certain traits and characteristics (forced evolution of a sort).

5) Genetic similarities between different species showing that they at some point came from a common ancestor.

If the only answer you can come up with is "God made it that way", that's fine. I just am curious as to how much evidence can be explained away by Creationists in their zeal to disbelieve evolution.

Oh I'll come up with a lot better than "God made it that way" I think that's a cop out. I believe science points towards God. Instead of thinking of it as explaining it away, maybe you should look into the science as well and stop assuming that everything you've been told about evolution is correct

1. Yeah- good stuff eh? Also you should note that evolution commonly held that those plants and animals took millions, if not billions of years to evolve once water formed on earth because according to evolution everything came from single celled organisms. Except that fossil evidence has proven that wrong. There are full, 3D fossils showing internal organs and such of some of the early creatures (I can't remember exactly which) very shortly after water forumed. That info is in the book I cited above as well. That completely goes against conventional wisdom held by evolutionists- please explain that one to me.

2. Right around 3.8 Billion years actually... I think you're assuming that all Creationists believe that the Earth is 6000 years old- read my first post in this thread and you'll find that's not what I believe. In fact I don't think that's what most Creationists believe.

3. Same as 2

4. Welcome to micro evolution- I completely believe that species adapt and change to their envionment because it has been proven by science. Macro evolution- evolution between species (from a fish to mammal for example) has never been proven. In fact fossil evidence points strongly against it if you look at fossils from the Cambrian explosion. During the Cambrian explosion nearly all of the world phyla came into existance in a short time period (remember Kingdom, Phlum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species). This contradicts evolution quite pointedly.

5. For example? If you're talking about DNA similarities and how we're 98% the same DNA as apes and such that's such a pile of misinformed crap. We're also 99% similar to mice, but it doesn't prove anything. What's also important is how the DNA is bent and order and such, read more here: http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/DNA-Myth-CommonerFeb02.htm

Anyway I'll post more later, I have a meeting to get to

[Marshall]

For sheer curiosity, I was wondering if any of the people in the Podium who believe in Creationism over Evolution could explain some of the following points:

1) The fossil record full of plants and animals (including primitive humans) from millions of years ago to thousands of years ago.

2) Carbon dating of fossils/rocks/etc that show the Earth has been around for hundreds of millions of years.

3) Ice core samples taken from Antarctica and The Arctic which show the same.

4) Farmers from 1,000 years ago up to even modern times using natural selection to breed plants and animals for certain traits and characteristics (forced evolution of a sort).

5) Genetic similarities between different species showing that they at some point came from a common ancestor.

If the only answer you can come up with is "God made it that way", that's fine. I just am curious as to how much evidence can be explained away by Creationists in their zeal to disbelieve evolution.I think it's very simple. If G-d were explaining how he created the world to a primitive people 5,000 years ago, he would use very simple terms, such as, "In the beginning, there was darkness, and the Lord said, 'Let there be light'..." and so forth. Basically, you'd simplify physics, genetics and geology down to the story that's in Genesis.

It's just that there are a lot of people in today's world who somehow can't come to grips with the fact that Genesis didn't describe DNA, relativity, or the Big Bang Theory. These people are not one bit different from the people who imprisoned scientists such as Gallileo, even though such theories are widely accepted today.

For all you Bible-thumpers out there, the message is very simple: Nothing in science can prove or disprove the existence of G-d. There is absolutely no reason why these scientific discoveries aren't simply explanations of the tools of Creation; just because they don't reflect Geneisis word-for-word isn't a reason to reject science, just as science is no reason to reject religion.

However, I believe that foolish religious people who reject simple scientific facts have been pushing scientists away from religion.

[XXnarg]

I think it's very simple. If G-d were explaining how he created the world to a primitive people 5,000 years ago, he would use very simple terms, such as, "In the beginning, there was darkness, and the Lord said, 'Let there be light'..." and so forth. Basically, you'd simplify physics, genetics and geology down to the story that's in Genesis.

It's just that there are a lot of people in today's world who somehow can't come to grips with the fact that Genesis didn't describe DNA, relativity, or the Big Bang Theory...Religion is evolving along with our technology.

[dalokgawd]

Religion is evolving along with our technology.
No kidding... anyone read the Left Behind series? It's freakin' fascinating!

[dalokgawd]

Oh I'll come up with a lot better than "God made it that way" I think that's a cop out. I believe science points towards God. Instead of thinking of it as explaining it away, maybe you should look into the science as well and stop assuming that everything you've been told about evolution is correct

1. Yeah- good stuff eh? Also you should note that evolution commonly held that those plants and animals took millions, if not billions of years to evolve once water formed on earth because according to evolution everything came from single celled organisms. Except that fossil evidence has proven that wrong. There are full, 3D fossils showing internal organs and such of some of the early creatures (I can't remember exactly which) very shortly after water forumed. That info is in the book I cited above as well. That completely goes against conventional wisdom held by evolutionists- please explain that one to me.
I have never heard of this. I will look around and see if I can find anything about it... do you have any links to this info besides the book on Amazon?

2. Right around 3.8 Billion years actually... I think you're assuming that all Creationists believe that the Earth is 6000 years old- read my first post in this thread and you'll find that's not what I believe. In fact I don't think that's what most Creationists believe.

3. Same as 2
Good then. We agree on this point.

4. Welcome to micro evolution- I completely believe that species adapt and change to their envionment because it has been proven by science. Macro evolution- evolution between species (from a fish to mammal for example) has never been proven. In fact fossil evidence points strongly against it if you look at fossils from the Cambrian explosion. During the Cambrian explosion nearly all of the world phyla came into existance in a short time period (remember Kingdom, Phlum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species). This contradicts evolution quite pointedly.
I can see how you would make that distinction. When it comes to mammals evolving from fish, I am with you in taking it with a grain of salt. The one thing I can think to tell you is that if you look at the evolution of plants, you can see incredible diversity in terms of new species evolving to fill ecological niches as they become available. Mutation can be a POWERFUL evolutionary force.

5. For example? If you're talking about DNA similarities and how we're 98% the same DNA as apes and such that's such a pile of misinformed crap. We're also 99% similar to mice, but it doesn't prove anything. What's also important is how the DNA is bent and order and such, read more here: http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/DNA-Myth-CommonerFeb02.htm

Anyway I'll post more later, I have a meeting to get to
Oh believe me... I know that we have an incredible amount of DNA in common with almost all life on this planet. But that's not the point. The point is that if God created all life on the planet seperately... why do commonalities in DNA seem to correlate to species closer together evolutionarily? i.e. - why do we have more in common genetically with other mammals than we do with pine trees or horseshoe crabs?

[Captal]

There is absolutely no reason why these scientific discoveries aren't simply explanations of the tools of Creation; just because they don't reflect Geneisis word-for-word isn't a reason to reject science, just as science is no reason to reject religion.

However, I believe that foolish religious people who reject simple scientific facts have been pushing scientists away from religion.

I couldn't agree with you more. Don't forget the scientists that have been pushing away religion as well though. It comes from both sides. Science doesn't explain why we're here, I don't know if some scientists understand that.

[Captal]

I have never heard of this. I will look around and see if I can find anything about it... do you have any links to this info besides the book on Amazon?

I don't have any links, sorry, I've read it in other books too but those have been religiously biased as well. This was the first time I'd read of the full, 3D fossils- apparently they were discovered in the early 1900s but then forgotten (on purpose or not) and then rediscovered in a lab in the 1980s, I'll find out more info from the book and post it up and look around on the internet to see if I can verify the story.


I can see how you would make that distinction. When it comes to mammals evolving from fish, I am with you in taking it with a grain of salt. The one thing I can think to tell you is that if you look at the evolution of plants, you can see incredible diversity in terms of new species evolving to fill ecological niches as they become available. Mutation can be a POWERFUL evolutionary force.

But realize what you're saying- that a plant still remains a plant- that's a poweful distinction. Actually the way that Schroeder puts it is that some big museum in the UK has an entire wing devoted to evolutions showing how butterflys develop and how different lillies develop and such. It's a very powerful display and then he realized- the butterfly is still a butterfly and the lily is still a lily.


Oh believe me... I know that we have an incredible amount of DNA in common with almost all life on this planet. But that's not the point. The point is that if God created all life on the planet seperately... why do commonalities in DNA seem to correlate to species closer together evolutionarily? i.e. - why do we have more in common genetically with other mammals than we do with pine trees or horseshoe crabs?
If there's already a good design- why not reuse it? Many many species have very similar eyes, even in different phyla. I'd say it goes against evolution for this to have occured because what are the chances that different species would develop very similar eyes via random mutation? Zero. What are the chances that a designer used the same design when it fit the application? Pretty good- in programmer terms its code reuse- object oriented programming at its finest :)

Your asking a sort of funny question when comparing mammals and trees as they're from completely different kingdoms- of course we're going to have more in common with species within our kingdom :P

[dalokgawd]

But realize what you're saying- that a plant still remains a plant- that's a poweful distinction. Actually the way that Schroeder puts it is that some big museum in the UK has an entire wing devoted to evolutions showing how butterflys develop and how different lillies develop and such. It's a very powerful display and then he realized- the butterfly is still a butterfly and the lily is still a lily.
So how do you explain amphibians? They live in two worlds. If a lily will always be a lily and a butterfly will always be a butterfly, why are there animals that have traits of both? Isn't is possible that a fish could evolve into an amphibian and an amphibian into a land dweller?

If there's already a good design- why not reuse it? Many many species have very similar eyes, even in different phyla. I'd say it goes against evolution for this to have occured because what are the chances that different species would develop very similar eyes via random mutation? Zero. What are the chances that a designer used the same design when it fit the application? Pretty good- in programmer terms its code reuse- object oriented programming at its finest :)

Your asking a sort of funny question when comparing mammals and trees as they're from completely different kingdoms- of course we're going to have more in common with species within our kingdom :P
Natural selection would dictate that if there is a really good design, for eyes lets say, then all animals would evolve similar eyes because that is the optimal design and it would be selected for. That doesn't go against evolution at all... that's exactly how natural selection works. If all of a sudden some sort of force came about on this planet that only creatures with dark eyes could survive, then those creatures with dark eyes would survive better and eventually everything would have dark eyes. That's not God deciding that everything's eyes should be similar... that's evolution selecting for an optimal design.

[Patchou]

1. Yeah- good stuff eh? Also you should note that evolution commonly held that those plants and animals took millions, if not billions of years to evolve once water formed on earth because according to evolution everything came from single celled organisms. Except that fossil evidence has proven that wrong. There are full, 3D fossils showing internal organs and such of some of the early creatures (I can't remember exactly which) very shortly after water forumed. That info is in the book I cited above as well. That completely goes against conventional wisdom held by evolutionists- please explain that one to me.
Could you please provide more information about your “3D fossils” that appeared very shortly after water formed?

I think you are not familiar with the Earth’s history so allow me to present you this succinct timeline.

1/ Water appeared on Earth 4.4 - 4.1 billion-year ago.
2/ Oldest fossils (prokaryotes) ~ 3.45 billion-year-old
3/ First eukaryote ~2.1 billion-year-old
4/ First multicellular fossils ~0.75 billion-year-old.

So you are about 3350 million years off between the appearance of water and the first multicellular organism.

2. Right around 3.8 Billion years actually... You are approximately 700 million years off. The age is about 4.5 billion years


Macro evolution- evolution between species (from a fish to mammal for example) has never been proven. Instead of making baseless claim you should learn about the development of the legs (Tetrapoda), the evolution of the lungs and the swim bladders, and the appearance of Amphibians.
Tomorrow maybe you can learn about the evolution of the amniotic egg and the subsequent rise of reptiles. And finally read about the first evidence of mammal-like reptile the Diictodon with appeared in the end of the Pleozoic about 250 million years ago.

In fact fossil evidence points strongly against it if you look at fossils from the Cambrian explosion. During the Cambrian explosion nearly all of the world phyla came into existance in a short time period (remember Kingdom, Phlum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species). This contradicts evolution quite pointedly. Once again, could you back up your claim? To tell you the truth, I think you do not know what you are talking about.

5. For example? If you're talking about DNA similarities and how we're 98% the same DNA as apes and such that's such a pile of misinformed crap. We're also 99% similar to mice, but it doesn't prove anything. What's also important is how the DNA is bent and order and such, read more here: http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/DNA-Myth-CommonerFeb02.htm
Read this.
What does the mouse genome draft tell us about evolution? (http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mouse%20genome%20home.htm)

"Evidence for the Theory of Evolution
The findings of the draft mouse genome are astonishingly powerful evidence for common ancestry, mutation and selection: in short for the Theory of Evolution. There is a list with links below for the key points within the paper which can only be explained by evolution. It is just not possible to explain what we see in the two genomes if they have only been in existence for 6500 years unless we invoke deliberate deceit on God's part. " :lol:

[Captal]

I'll post more tonight or tomorrow when I can get ahold of my reference material.

Patchou are you just frustrated or naturally mean-spirited? I know everyone gets their panties in a bunch on internet forums but it's usually after the name calling starts. As for being 3.3 million years off- that's why these fossils were so important- they are multicellular and at an age way earlier than originally expected. Like I said I'll post more info later.

If you aren't familiar with the Cambrian explosion please do some reading into it- how exactly do you want me to back up my claim? I've told you the main thrust of it- go do the research- if you want me to go search google and post up links then fine. Otherwise I can only say go read that book or several other books I've read.

[Patchou]

Patchou are you just frustrated or naturally mean-spirited? I know everyone gets their panties in a bunch on internet forums but it's usually after the name calling starts. Apparently your lack of argument is revealed by your lack of courtesy. But I am not surprised of your comments after being proven wrong about your pseudo “3D fossils”, and after the compelling explanation of the steps separating the evolution of mammals from fish. Are you upset because I found a link showing that 99% similarity of human and mouse genes demonstrated evolution?

To tell you the truth, I was wrong to expect politeness from someone like you who claims to be religious.

As for being 3.3 million years off- that's why these fossils were so important- they are multicellular and at an age way earlier than originally expected. Like I said I'll post more info later. Again, what are you talking about? I can’t wait for your explanation

If you aren't familiar with the Cambrian explosion please do some reading into it- how exactly do you want me to back up my claim? I've told you the main thrust of it- go do the research- if you want me to go search google and post up links then fine. Otherwise I can only say go read that book or several other books I've read. Captal, please tell me why would the Cambrian explosion go against the theory of evolution? Believe me, I am interested in other hypothesis. If you don’t have time to provide me with an explanation, please give me a link to read about it. But please, don’t tell me go buy and read a book from amazon.com

[Captal]

Have I not been polite and courteous to you and everyone else? My apologies if I've been impolite in any way. If you can't see the panties in a bunch comment as anything but a lighthearted joke than you're taking this all way too seriously.

As for your link I haven't looked at it- when I get home from work I'll try and give it a look. Have you read my link?

There is a lack of argument in my previous post because I said I'd like to consult my references first. I don't have a link on any of this and I don't have time to go digging for one. Patience.

[Patchou]

Have I not been polite and courteous to you and everyone else? My apologies if I've been impolite in any way. If you can't see the panties in a bunch comment as anything but a lighthearted joke than you're taking this all way too seriously.Apologies accepted.

I am sorry I fail to see where was the lighthearted joke.
I think you are taking this to seriously, otherwise why would you asked this: "are you just frustrated or naturally mean-spirited?"

Have you read my link?Yes, this is partly why I posted mine.

[Captal]

Apologies accepted.
I think you are taking this to seriously, otherwise why would you asked this: "are you just frustrated or naturally mean-spirited?"

I posted that because your initial post was pretty demeaning so I was curious if you were frustrated by what you thought was complete lack of knowing what I was talking about or you just liked to talk down to people.

[mmathis]

As for being 3.3 million years off- that's why these fossils were so important- they are multicellular and at an age way earlier than originally expected. Like I said I'll post more info later.

Uh, he said you were 3.3 billion years off, not million. Bit of a difference there...

[Captal]

Good point- 3.3 Billion, not Million.

Ok- I've got my references in front of me- I was mistaken on the Earth being 3.8 Billion years old- 3.8 Billion years ago the Earth cooled and liquid water appeared. Schroeder states the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old as well.

Ok I again I was in error on the 3 Billion year old fossil, heh, it's amazing what the human mind forgets. But the point I was making still stand, here's the skinny (quotes are from "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder):

Charles Walcott found a huge find of fossils (between 60-80 thousand) in the Burgess Pass in the Canadian Rockies in 1909 (he was director of the Smithsonian Institute at the time of the finding). The fossils he found were very well preserved:


The fineness of the mud was important. Normally only hard tissues such as bone and teeth survive the burial process intact. Here the silt captured, and the anoxic environmnet preserved, the soft outer tissues of the trapped plants and animals. The fine silt, infiltrating the animals' bodies, preserved their inner organs. In time, as layers of successive slides increased the overlying pressure, the mud metamorphosed into shale. Fossils, complete with three-dimensional impressions of their soft tissues and organs, had been formed. A unique history of life lay recorded in stone. (page 35)

Walcott was a world-renowned paleontologist and the world's expert on the explosion of multicellular life that occurred in the Cambrian period, 500 to 600 million years ago.
...
Using his geologist's hammer Walcott would have rapped the multilayered slab on its edge. The layers separated and there, held within, was the fine imprint of a crustacean. But this was impossible. THe shale was too old to contain a fossil as complex as this specimen. Some 550 million years ago, at the start of the Cambrian, the only life on Earth was the most simple forms, one-celled bacteria, algae, protozoans, and some pancake-shaped life of uncertain definition known as Ediacaran fossils. There was no way evolution could have advanced life from one-celled protozoans to the complexity of this crustacean in the twenty or so million years of the Cambrian. There simply had not been enough time for that development. Well into the 1970s, evolutionary theory assumed that in excess of 100 million years were needed for the basic body plans of advanced life to evolve from the simplicity of pre-Cambrian life.
Other shale pieces yielded a variety of equally fantastic animal fossils. Walcott, meticulous as always, recorded their shapes in his diary. During the next decade Walcott collected and shipped between sixty and eighty thousand of these specimans to his institution in Washington, D.C.
...
Representatives of every animal phylum, the basic anatomies of all animals alive todya, were present amoung those half-billion-year-old specimens. These fossils revealed an extraordinary fact.
Eyes and gills, jointed limbs and intestines, sponges and worms and insects and fish, all had appeared simultaneously. There had not been a gradual evolution of simply phyla such as sponges into the more complex phyla of worms and then to other life forms such as insects. According to these fossils, at the most fundamental level of animal life, the phylum or basic body plan, the dogma of classical Darwinian evolution that the simple had evolved in the more complex, that invertebrates had evolved into vertebrates over one hundred to two hundred million years, was fantasy, not fact.
(pages 35, 36, 36-37)

He then goes on to talk about how Walcott basically transported all this stuff back to his lab and left it there and never brought it up because it was contrary to his beliefs and the current opinion. In short he forgot about them, either consciously or subconsciously (Schroeder blames cognative dissonance, humanitiy's inherent desire to ignore unpleasant facts).

By the way just for fun I'll quote the ending of "The Origin of Species" by Darwin since Schroeder himself points it out:


There is grandeur in thie view of life, with several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
(The Origin of Species, sixth edition, 1872, (the last made while Darwin was alive))


Love that part about a Creator, anyway, I digress. I'll continue.


The Burgess fossils suggest an explosion of new life forms. Evolutionists might prefer an ordered development of this life, while creationists claim an inexplicable sudden appearance. There is cognative dissonance on both sides. Why should we assume answers to questions life this? The overwhelming weight of evidence tells us something exotic certainly happened to produce the variety of life as we know it on our planet. As to what that was, the jury is still out.
Rediscovery of Walcott's fossils in the mid-1980s changed the concept of evolution. Their effect has been so dramatic that the most widely read science journal in the world, Scientific American, in its November 1992 issue was moved to question: "Has the mechanism of evolution altered?" The same reaction to these fossils appeared in the October 1993 isse of National Geographic magazine.
...
I must clarify an important point. The Burgess fossils do not question the development of classes of life. It is no secret that each individual phylum first appeared as simple aquatic forms and became more complex with the passage of time. The Book of Genesis proclaimed this fact 3,300 years ago: first came aquatic animals, then winged creatures and land animals, then mammals. That's Genesis 1! The Bible knows about development. Humans are the last, not the first, of the animals mentioned in Genesis. It is inter-phylum development that has been proven to be a fantasy.
(pages 36,37)

He then goes on to talk about how the religious community is as much to blame since they try and fit a "superficial knowledge of science into conformity with a simple reading of the Bible."

He ends the chapter with:

With every new discovery, science produces a picture of a more wonderous world. As it does, it appeals to our sense of humility. If believers can get beyond the rigidities of their worst days-if the sorts of unjustified reactions against Galileo and Darwin can be finally put to rest-then perhaps secular scientists can open their minds to the possibility of purpose. With depth of understanding in these two sources of knowledge, we can discern that they complement each other rather than compete. (page 40)


I found why I was talking about the 3 billion year old fossils as well:


Until the 1970s the scientific theory of the origin of life claimed that billions of years passed on the newly cooled Earth during which inorganic elements randomly coupled and broke apart, coupled and broke apart, until finally after a myriad of these random trials, a self-replicating molecule formed that led to primitive life.
The test of this theory was a search for fossils among the most ancient rocks able to bear fossils (sedimentary rocks). To the amazement of the scientific community, fossil evidence was discovered that showed life started, not after the predicted billions of years, but immediately on the cooled Earth.
...
To account for life's immediate appearance, today's scientific theories require either that life was planted on Earth from outer space (!), or that an exotic property of molecular self-organization rapidly joined the necessary chemicals into self-replicating molecules and then a yet-to-be-discovered series of catalysts developed there fecund molecules into life itself. The most optimistic scenarios reveal that random reactions on their own could not have produced life in the time available even if the entire universe were the laboratory and testing ground for these random reaction.
(pages 28-29)


He cites several Scientific American articles for that last section (all the other sections are very well cited ass well, in fact there are several hundred citations in the back of the book):
L.Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, October 1994.
J. Rebek, Jr., "Synthetic Self-Replicating Molecules," Scientific American, July 1994.
C.DeDuve, Blueprint for a Cell, Neil Patterson Publishers, Burlington, NC, 1990.

So according to his timeline you're a bit off. Phew. I don't think I can type anymore from his book, anyway if you find any of that interesting I'd give the book a read. Heck I'll mail you my copy if you want if you promise to send it back when you're done. He covers a wide variety of topics and I found his arguments and analysis to be very different that common theory and very intriguing. Just as a "try to get you to read it" he talks about the ancestors to Adam and Eve as well. And what he said made sense to me. Anyway I'll dig around and see if I can find anything online about the Burgess fossils.

[Captal]

Here's an interesting site: http://www.burgess-shale.bc.ca/intro.htm


The fossils appear as dark films or lithographic pictures on fine-grained shale. Even the soft parts (gills, legs, and guts) of some animals are preserved, which is very rare, since usually only hard parts of animals (their shells, bones, or teeth) are preserved as fossils. The Burgess Shale animals lived shortly after the Cambrian Explosion, an "evolutionary Big Bang" where all major types of animals suddenly appeared in the fossil record, in a huge expansion of biodiversity. Some animals of the Burgess Shale are the ancestors of animals that are common today, but others have long been extinct, and are unlike anything in our modern oceans.

[Captal]

Also look interesting but long so I didn't read much: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1366/burgess.html

The interest generated by the Burgess Shale stems largely from the novelty of the bizarre organisms it contains, but the fauna's significance goes beyond the enigmas of the anatomy of its species. The diversity and disparity of animals at this point in the earth's history raises questions about the history and pace of evolution. It has raised many questions among paleontologists, who hope that their attentions will produce some answers.

[mmathis]

To account for life's immediate appearance, today's scientific theories require either that life was planted on Earth from outer space (!), or that an exotic property of molecular self-organization rapidly joined the necessary chemicals into self-replicating molecules and then a yet-to-be-discovered series of catalysts developed there fecund molecules into life itself. The most optimistic scenarios reveal that random reactions on their own could not have produced life in the time available even if the entire universe were the laboratory and testing ground for these random reaction.
(pages 28-29)

The key word is random. If you flip a (fair) coin 1 million times, it is possible to land 1 million tails. Not probable. But possible. And the number of times you would have to repeat the experiment, on average, to actually get 1 million tails is astronomical. But the probability is non-zero. You can run computer simulations, and calculate probabilities and mean-experiment-numbers until your heart's content, but you can never say that there just isn't enough time to flip a coin 1 million times and get 1 million tails, because the probability of doing so is non-zero.

Mutations are also random. While it may not be likely that such an evolutionary "giant step" took place in the span of 20 million years, it is possible, with an enormously small probability, is it not?

[Captal]

In reality it's not. Have you ever heard the quote, nevermind I found it online:


Fred Hoyle is an astronomer who has turned his attention to biology. Although, not himself a Christian believer, he is deeply critical of the atheist attempt to say that such wonders could have arisen by chance. I am well aware that many regard his views as somewhat eccentric and it would be unwise of me to use him as an ally. Even if this assessment of him is fair (and I am not sure that it is), it does not mean his arguments should not be faced honestly. However unusual some of his opinions may be, I know of one example where he clearly is misrepresented by his opponents. He is famous for his junkyard illustration. What are the chances of a whirlwind blowing through a junkyard assembling a Jumbo Jet from its pieces scattered about the Junkyard? Of course there is no chance that it would ever happen. Fred Hoyle says that life is so complex that to say it came into existence by chance processes is like saying that the whirlwind assembled the Jumbo Jet.


Yeah the probability of assembling a jumbo jet is non-zero, but it still isn't going to happen. Same thing here.

[Drio]

In reality it's not. Have you ever heard the quote, nevermind I found it online:

Yeah the probability of assembling a jumbo jet is non-zero, but it still isn't going to happen. Same thing here.

Life didn't start out nearly as complicated as a jumbo jet. It began as a cell. Unlike a jumbo jet, a cell can evolve into something more complex.

[Captal]

Life didn't start out nearly as complicated as a jumbo jet. It began as a cell. Unlike a jumbo jet, a cell can evolve into something more complex.

Cells aren't complex eh? That's pretty funny since cells are probably the most complex thing I can think of. The first cells were much more basic but still pretty complex.

Anyway, you're completely missing the point of the statement, it's not about a jumbo jet, it's about the ridiculousness of "well there is still a very slight probability so it must be possible." Yeah, about as possible as a whirlwind going through a junkyard and constructing a jumbo jet.

For example the whole tossing a penny 1 million times and getting all tails- that probability is 1/(2^1000000). Just for giggles 1/(2^1000) = 9.33 x 10^-302. It's not going to happen- it just isn't- and that jumbo jet quote is meant to show how ridiculous of a statement something like that is. It's like that stupid quote if you put a bunch of monkeys in a room with typewriters they'll eventually write the Bible, or a work by Shakespeare. No, they won't.

I view this reasoning to be as big a cop out as "God put the fossils there." It's just silly.

[XXnarg]

Life may not have begun with cells (almost 4 billion years ago), but with the building blocks that lead up to cells.

Protein chains and simple viruses may have formed before entire cells. Such chemicals combinations are nowhere near as complex as cells. We see evidence of simple (and even much more complex) combinations throughout nature.

Another theory (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2541393.stm) is that inorganic cells formed first, in iron sulfide rocks under the sea, and that organic material was absorbed into the cells. The cells may have been swept up towards the surface by convection currents.

[Patchou]

So according to his timeline you're a bit off. Could you precise how or where?Phew. I don't think I can type anymore from his book, anyway if you find any of that interesting I'd give the book a read. Heck I'll mail you my copy if you want if you promise to send it back when you're done. He covers a wide variety of topics and I found his arguments and analysis to be very different that common theory and very intriguing. Just as a "try to get you to read it" he talks about the ancestors to Adam and Eve as well. And what he said made sense to me. Anyway I'll dig around and see if I can find anything online about the Burgess fossils.Thank you, however I can obtain just about any book at my university.

If you are interested you should read this book: Wonderful Life by Stephen Jay Gould
It is without a doubt the most famous book on the Burgess Shale (and by the way I’ve been there although we did not have access to the fossils quarry).

The fossils appear as dark films or lithographic pictures on fine-grained shale. Even the soft parts (gills, legs, and guts) of some animals are preserved, which is very rare, since usually only hard parts of animals (their shells, bones, or teeth) are preserved as fossils. The Burgess Shale animals lived shortly after the Cambrian Explosion, an "evolutionary Big Bang" where all major types of animals suddenly appeared in the fossil record, in a huge expansion of biodiversity. Some animals of the Burgess Shale are the ancestors of animals that are common today, but others have long been extinct, and are unlike anything in our modern oceans The interest generated by the Burgess Shale stems largely from the novelty of the bizarre organisms it contains, but the fauna's significance goes beyond the enigmas of the anatomy of its species. The diversity and disparity of animals at this point in the earth's history raises questions about the history and pace of evolution. It has raised many questions among paleontologists, who hope that their attentions will produce some answers.
Please tell me, what is the point of these quotes? How do they relate to the discussion?

If anything I think the Burgess Shale strengthen the idea of evolution.

[Patchou]

Just an off topic post for those interested.

3 of my favorite “creatures” from the Burgess shale

Opabinia and its five eyes
http://www.grafikhuset.dk/Urhavet/Dka%20Opabinia.jpg

And our ancestor Pikaia http://visindavefur.hi.is/myndir/pikaia_120204.jpg

Hallucigenia
http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/bshale/images/bs03th.jpg http://www.dharma-haven.org/science/hallucigenia.jpg
Look carefully at the last two pictures. Hallucigenia was originally thought to have stood on its spines, with the tentacles upward. Later studies have shown that the tentacles are actually feet. It is still displayed spines down at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum.
I hope you like it. :)

[Captal]

Could you precise how or where?

Sure, he says:

Until the 1970s the scientific theory of the origin of life claimed that billions of years passed on the newly cooled Earth during which inorganic elements randomly coupled and broke apart, coupled and broke apart, until finally after a myriad of these random trials, a self-replicating molecule formed that led to primitive life.
The test of this theory was a search for fossils among the most ancient rocks able to bear fossils (sedimentary rocks). To the amazement of the scientific community, fossil evidence was discovered that showed life started, not after the predicted billions of years, but immediately on the cooled Earth.


Meaning that life started directly after water cooled (which he says is at 3.8B years and you said 4.1-4.4) and then you said the oldest fossil is 3.45B years old. You're giving roughly .6-1B years between the cooling of water and the first fossil and he says there is evidence that it occurred immediately after water cooled. I added those quotes because I didn't realize you were familiar with the Burgess shale, just some interesting quotes I saw on the sites.

Also- I'm not seeing any pictures :(

If anything I think the Burgess Shale strengthen the idea of evolution.
I don't understand how the sudden appearance of nearly all of the worlds phylum strengthens evolution- that doesn't mesh well with a gradual change from one phylum into another...

Anything else to say on his ideas?

[mmathis]

For example the whole tossing a penny 1 million times and getting all tails- that probability is 1/(2^1000000). Just for giggles 1/(2^1000) = 9.33 x 10^-302. It's not going to happen- it just isn't- and that jumbo jet quote is meant to show how ridiculous of a statement something like that is. It's like that stupid quote if you put a bunch of monkeys in a room with typewriters they'll eventually write the Bible, or a work by Shakespeare. No, they won't.

How can you say that it isn't going to happen? There is a non-zero probability of it happening (albeit, extremely small), but that means that it is possible. Not at all probable, and on average it would probably take longer than the age of the universe to actually get 1 million tails. But that doesn't mean you couldn't land 1 million tails the first time you tried.

[Captal]

How can you say that it isn't going to happen? There is a non-zero probability of it happening (albeit, extremely small), but that means that it is possible. Not at all probable, and on average it would probably take longer than the age of the universe to actually get 1 million tails. But that doesn't mean you couldn't land 1 million tails the first time you tried.

Ok, well let me know the next time you win the lottery every day in a row for, say the next 1000 days or so and you still won't come close to touching that probability. It's not going to happen- from what I've read most scientists have thrown out the random chance theory in favor of other theories just because its so ridiculous.

The probability is so infinitesimally small that in reality it's zero. Instead of looking for things that basically have no chance of happening, you need to look for things that have a high probability of happening, because then you have a theory that likely could have happened.

[stimpy]

How can you say that it isn't going to happen? There is a non-zero probability of it happening (albeit, extremely small), but that means that it is possible. Not at all probable, and on average it would probably take longer than the age of the universe to actually get 1 million tails. But that doesn't mean you couldn't land 1 million tails the first time you tried.

Yeh right! You've got a better chance of convincing someone in a political forum under the title of Slick Deals to change their mind on anything. :lmao:

[Drio]

Cells aren't complex eh? That's pretty funny since cells are probably the most complex thing I can think of. The first cells were much more basic but still pretty complex.

Anyway, you're completely missing the point of the statement, it's not about a jumbo jet, it's about the ridiculousness of "well there is still a very slight probability so it must be possible." Yeah, about as possible as a whirlwind going through a junkyard and constructing a jumbo jet.

For example the whole tossing a penny 1 million times and getting all tails- that probability is 1/(2^1000000). Just for giggles 1/(2^1000) = 9.33 x 10^-302. It's not going to happen- it just isn't- and that jumbo jet quote is meant to show how ridiculous of a statement something like that is. It's like that stupid quote if you put a bunch of monkeys in a room with typewriters they'll eventually write the Bible, or a work by Shakespeare. No, they won't.

I view this reasoning to be as big a cop out as "God put the fossils there." It's just silly.

Maybe I'm not missing the point. Consider that for a moment. How much matter would it have taken to spark the first little cell into existance? Not much. Something that would fit on the head of a needle perhaps. How many needles would you need to fit the surface portion of the earth upon them? Many. How long would it take for this reaction to take place? Moments probably. How many moments, on how many needle heads, over billions of years...

Of course the odds of flipping a coin 1 million times and getting all heads sounds completely ridiculous. But that's because you're putting it in terms of real life activities. They sound impossible to you because they are very far from something with the relative life span of a millisecond can comprehend.

My theory.. and I'm sticking to it... is that Barney the purple dinosaur created our universe! I have just as much proof as you. :P

[mmathis]

The probability is so infinitesimally small that in reality it's zero.

In every day life, yes, its effectively zero. But the universe is not everyday life.

Instead of looking for things that basically have no chance of happening, you need to look for things that have a high probability of happening, because then you have a theory that likely could have happened.

Perhaps the creationists should take this advice as well :)

[Patchou]

Sure, he says:

Meaning that life started directly after water cooled (which he says is at 3.8B years and you said 4.1-4.4) and then you said the oldest fossil is 3.45B years old. You're giving roughly .6-1B years between the cooling of water and the first fossil and he says there is evidence that it occurred immediately after water cooled. I added those quotes because I didn't realize you were familiar with the Burgess shale, just some interesting quotes I saw on the sites.
I gave an age of 4.4Ga because this is the age of the oldest mineral on earth (not rock) -a detrital zircon found in Australia. Some very recent studies claim that the deposition of this mineral is the evidence for the presence of water on Earth. Other studies (although controversial) think that maybe the appearance of water resulted from a collision with a comet around this time within 500 MA. (and perhaps it is the same event that produced the Moon?)

However, the oldest rock (Acasta Gneisses) is about 4.03 Ga. Most (but not all) geologists believe that the Earth’s surface was still molten at that time. Searh for “magma ocean” hypothesis.
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect19/wwr65.jpg

Therefore liquid water did not materialize until the Earth's surface solidified. Hence, some geologist prefer to say that water appeared after 4.0 Ga.

Now, the oldest fossils is 3.8 Ga from the Ishua Super Group in Greenland (primitive cell). However, oldest accepted prokaryote fossils date is 3.5 billion years from the Apex Chert, Western Australia. (in my post I did precise prokariote).

So if the author knows about other evidence please present them. If the author knows when water first appeared, I would be delighted to hear his hypothesis. In addition, the claim that life appeared right after the formation of water is unverifiable for the moment.


Also- I'm not seeing any pictures :(
I am sorry. If someone knows what to do, please help.
I don't understand how the sudden appearance of nearly all of the worlds phylum strengthens evolution- that doesn't mesh well with a gradual change from one phylum into another...
Read about “Punctuated equilibrium” which is a theory proposed in part by Stephen Jay Gould.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

[Captal]

Good info Patchou- I'll read later- don't have time at work right now :)

[Captal]

Maybe I'm not missing the point. Consider that for a moment. How much matter would it have taken to spark the first little cell into existance? Not much. Something that would fit on the head of a needle perhaps. How many needles would you need to fit the surface portion of the earth upon them? Many. How long would it take for this reaction to take place? Moments probably. How many moments, on how many needle heads, over billions of years...

Of course the odds of flipping a coin 1 million times and getting all heads sounds completely ridiculous. But that's because you're putting it in terms of real life activities. They sound impossible to you because they are very far from something with the relative life span of a millisecond can comprehend.

My theory.. and I'm sticking to it... is that Barney the purple dinosaur created our universe! I have just as much proof as you. :P

But my point is not only billions of years not enough time, but it was a lot shorter than billions of years. According to Patchou approximately 500 million years between water formation and the first "accepted" fossil, according to Schroeder and whereever he got his evidence from, "immediately."

Its not how much matter a cell takes up, but how much complicated "stuff" is on the inside- DNA, RNA, reproduction, factories and highways (in a sense)- its like its own little world. Its not like we're trying to make 4 or 5 elements turn into a mix of 4 or 5 elements like a child mixing finger-paints. We're talking about taking those 4 or 5 elements and making a tiny city.

[Patchou]

But my point is not only billions of years not enough time, but it was a lot shorter than billions of years. According to Patchou approximately 500 million years between water formation and the first "accepted" fossil, according to Schroeder and whereever he got his evidence from, "immediately."
I must admit that we do not know exactly when water appeared. Nonetheless, I think that around 4.0 Ga is the good guess. Also, because none of this is my work, I would prefer if you didn’t say “according to Patchou”

Anyway, the oldest fossils (prokaryotes) is ~ 3.5 billion-year-old, so as far as we know it took about 1.4 billion years to produce the first eukaryote (~2.1 billion-year-old), then it took 1.35 billion years to form the first multicellular organism (~0.75 billion-year-old).

Now consider the relative simplicity of a Prokaryote (unicellular and no nucleus) versus a Eukaryote (unicellular with nucleus) and imagine that it took 1,400 million of years to just make that change.
Is it fast?

[Mavtech]

Man, I was trying to read this thread because I am highly interested to know how people would want to explain the earth's existence based on a book of stories. I was watching the debate on Nightline last night about teaching evolution vs. creationism in the schools. Kansas school boards are voting on allowing it. Although I feel if they do, they should be required to teach both sides equally and let people decide for themselves. The problem is, how in the world would you test creationism? They had a devout Catholic Highschool Biology teacher on there. He said "I would love to be able to teach my students that there is an Intelligent life who created all this. But, there is no way for me to test it." What evidence is there to test to teach students? Again, too many people believe something just because it has been passed down generation after generation that it is that way. This is why I am agnostic and will believe evolutionist theories until something more concrete is offered.

[dalokgawd]

Man, I was trying to read this thread because I am highly interested to know how people would want to explain the earth's existence based on a book of stories. I was watching the debate on Nightline last night about teaching evolution vs. creationism in the schools. Kansas school boards are voting on allowing it. Although I feel if they do, they should be required to teach both sides equally and let people decide for themselves. The problem is, how in the world would you test creationism? They had a devout Catholic Highschool Biology teacher on there. He said "I would love to be able to teach my students that there is an Intelligent life who created all this. But, there is no way for me to test it." What evidence is there to test to teach students? Again, too many people believe something just because it has been passed down generation after generation that it is that way. This is why I am agnostic and will believe evolutionist theories until something more concrete is offered.
:offtopic: but... as I stated in a previous thread. Evolution belongs in science class. Creationism belongs in a religion class. Creationism has about as much place in a science class as genetic engineering does in a Sunday School lesson.

[Mavtech]

:offtopic: but... as I stated in a previous thread. Evolution belongs in science class. Creationism belongs in a religion class. Creationism has about as much place in a science class as genetic engineering does in a Sunday School lesson.
:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

[snipe]

Ok, well let me know the next time you win the lottery every day in a row for, say the next 1000 days or so and you still won't come close to touching that probability. It's not going to happen- from what I've read most scientists have thrown out the random chance theory in favor of other theories just because its so ridiculous.

The probability is so infinitesimally small that in reality it's zero. Instead of looking for things that basically have no chance of happening, you need to look for things that have a high probability of happening, because then you have a theory that likely could have happened.
I just wanted to comment on something here. From what I have read, and to my understanding of your perspective and view (particularly with flipping the coin) is that there is only one coin to be flipped.

I believe it should be viewed as trillions upon trillions of coins (chances of success) being flipped across the planet over the course of a billion years (or there abouts). As Drio said, it is extremely difficult for a being who lives 70 years to even conceive a span of time as large and vast as a billion years.

It's not just mmathis playing the lottery everyday and winning straight for a thousand days, it's trillions of opportunities over a billion years, and one of them hitting it rich.

Doesn't sound so unbelievable to me.

[Captal]

Again, too many people believe something just because it has been passed down generation after generation that it is that way.

Its the same thing with evolution though- people get it taught to them (usually factually, which it isn't) in high school and they just believe it from there on out.

There have been great strides for both evolution and intelligent design/creationism in the past decade- I happen to believe that the evidence for creationism has been stronger, thus I believe it.

I think they should at least bring up the theory in science class- that everything is so well designed that it is possible that there was a designer. More importantly they should stop teaching evolution as factual and teach it as a theory. That's what angers me more- evolution is not a proven theory.

[Captal]

I just wanted to comment on something here. From what I have read, and to my understanding of your perspective and view (particularly with flipping the coin) is that there is only one coin to be flipped.

I believe it should be viewed as trillions upon trillions of coins (chances of success) being flipped across the planet over the course of a billion years (or there abouts). As Drio said, it is extremely difficult for a being who lives 70 years to even conceive a span of time as large and vast as a billion years.

It's not just mmathis playing the lottery everyday and winning straight for a thousand days, it's trillions of opportunities over a billion years, and one of them hitting it rich.

Doesn't sound so unbelievable to me.

I don't think you're right here in your "trillions of opportunities over a billion years" theory. When a species evolves, according to evolution, what happens first is that one individual member of the species randomly mutates- that random mutation happens to be positive so he has a greater chance of survival than his breathren. He has to pass that mutation on to his community for it to take effect in the entire species, which takes many generations. The problem is the larger the community, the more generations it will take but the smaller the community, the less likely a positive mutation occurs (because there are less members).

This is another reason the Burgess Shale finding was so important- there just wasn't enough time for all those mutations to occur between species/phylum.

[Mavtech]

Its the same thing with evolution though- people get it taught to them (usually factually, which it isn't) in high school and they just believe it from there on out.

There have been great strides for both evolution and intelligent design/creationism in the past decade- I happen to believe that the evidence for creationism has been stronger, thus I believe it.

I think they should at least bring up the theory in science class- that everything is so well designed that it is possible that there was a designer. More importantly they should stop teaching evolution as factual and teach it as a theory. That's what angers me more- evolution is not a proven theory.

Evidence of creationism? I would like to see that. :lmao: As it has been shown, there is FAAAR more evidence and more sound theories for evolution than creationism. Although not flawless, there are facts and evidence of evolution of organisms and life forms which is why it is taught in schools.

Like I posted in a previous post, there was a devout Catholic Biology teacher on Nightline the other night who said he would love to be able to teach that there is a more intelligent being. But, he can't test it. Therefore, he can't teach it. That's a person I can respect. He's a devout Catholic who recognizes there is no way to prove or test that there is or isn't a God.

But, if it is taught in school, they need to teach both equally so people can decide for themselves instead of being told what to believe. It ticks me off that people are raised to believe something and therefore can never be convinced otherwise regardless of presence of evidence or the lack there of where Creationism is concerned. Creationism is nothing but a belief and faith. Period!!

[dalokgawd]

There have been great strides for both evolution and intelligent design/creationism in the past decade- I happen to believe that the evidence for creationism has been stronger, thus I believe it.

I think they should at least bring up the theory in science class- that everything is so well designed that it is possible that there was a designer. More importantly they should stop teaching evolution as factual and teach it as a theory. That's what angers me more- evolution is not a proven theory.
I'm sorry... did you just say EVIDENCE of Creationism? Other than your argument that everything is too perfect for it to have happened by chance (which is an opinion... NOT evidence) what evidence do you have of creationism?

And evolution is about as proven a theory as can be. The fossil record alone shows evolution of countless species over time. You can look at the fossils of different animals and see how their evolution took place by tracking the changes in their fossils over time. Not to mention, as I said before, that farmers have been using forced evolution by selectively breeding crops and animals for thousands of years. PROOF POSITIVE that natural selection and evolution can change species in time.

Evolution may not be proven, but it has A TON of solid evidence behind it. Creationism has NONE.

[Drio]

I happen to believe that the evidence for creationism has been stronger, thus I believe it.


Evidence? There is no evidence. There's only things we don't understand yet about how we came to be.

Creationism is tossing your hands up in the air and saying "well I don't understand it.. the almighty must have done it."

Edit: Oops.. dalokgawd kinda beat me to it..

[XXnarg]

It's interesting that the fossil record is considered by some creationists to be valid ONLY when it can be construed as to go against a scientific explanation of life. Otherwise, they disregard the fossil record.

Mutations: It does not necessarily take many eons or even thousands of years for a superior mutation to become dominant.

Suppose a mutation allows a creature to go from the sea to the land for the first time to seek plant food. That creature would have a complete and absolute monopoly on that food source. It would proliferate much much faster than it's brethren who are competing back in the sea.

Or consider the white moth in England that mutated to completely black in just a few years, due to being camouflaged to blend in with coal soot in the the industrial age.

Many species have short life cycles, on the range of days or weeks. Even if a generation lasts decades, that allows for plenty of time for rapid domination by superior mutations, considering that we are talking billions of years overall.

Another possible explanation of various mutations existing together is that the mutations could have occurred in different areas and then migrated to a common location. That would juxtapose life in many stages of evolution in one location at the same time. Life was carried around the world by many forces, such as currents in the ocean, wind, flying creatures, self-locomotion, etc., so it's not unreasonable to assume that life forms in various stages of evolution may coexist....I believe it should be viewed as trillions upon trillions of coins (chances of success) being flipped across the planet over the course of a billion years (or there abouts)...It's not just mmathis playing the lottery everyday and winning straight for a thousand days, it's trillions of opportunities over a billion years, and one of them hitting it rich.

Doesn't sound so unbelievable to me.There are many many MORE chances than billions times trillions!

Consdier that in a single grain of salt, there are about 1.2 x 10 to the 18th atoms.

Or, that's 1,200,000,000,000,000,000 atoms in a single grain of salt.

Considering all the possible interractions that these atoms have to combine and interract with adjacent atoms, and considering the many various factors which cause them to combine with other atoms, that's an inconceivably large number of coin tosses!

My money is on the coin toss.

[Mavtech]

Creationism is tossing your hands up in the air and saying "well I don't understand it.. the almighty must have done it."

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Drio, this is funny as hell. However, it sooooo true. Anything we don't know or understand MUST have been done by a divine being.

Creationism is as real to me as how I believed as a kid if I concentrated hard enough, I could make that toy light saber come to my hand. There's about as much proof of "the force" as there is creationism.

[Drio]

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Drio, this is funny as hell. However, it sooooo true. Anything we don't know or understand MUST have been done by a divine being.
And that frisky divine being is so darn good at covering his tracks!!! ;)

[dalokgawd]

The idea that someone can even claim with a straight face that there is evidence for Creationism... let alone that there is more evidence for Creationism than evolution... just blows me away.

If someone wants to claim that it seems more probable, or that they just believe that it fits, whatever... that I could understand. But using the word evidence in relation to Creationism is just plain wrong.

[XXnarg]

And that frisky divine being is so darn good at covering his tracks!!! ;)What? Can't you see His evidence:

http://abclocal.go.com/images/wls_041805_mary5.jpg http://abclocal.go.com/images/wls_041805_mary3.jpg

"Car Washers Restore "Underpass Mary" (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/05082005_bb_underpassmary.html#)
CHICAGO-May 8, 2005 — A stain on the wall of a Chicago expressway underpass that some believe resembles the Virgin Mary is again attracting visitors.

That's because two car wash employees used a degreaser to clean graffiti and brown paint off the image during their lunch break.

A man had scrawled the words "Big Lie" in shoe polish on the image Thursday night. And on Friday, Chicago police directed transportation workers to cover the image with brown paint for safety reasons.

After the women cleaned up the image, onlookers say they again can see the Virgin Mary.

Hundreds of people have flocked to the underpass since last month to see the image. Some leave devotional candles. Many come to pray. Still others take snapshots.

State transportation officials say the stain is likely the result of salt runoff. "

:lmao:

[dalokgawd]

Yeah because I'm sure God has nothing better to do with his time than make images appear in underpasses and on breakfast waffles.

[aclays]

maybe one of his guardian angels got bored :lmao:

[XXnarg]

Does Pretzel Look Like Mary And Jesus? (http://www.nbc10.com/news/4256640/detail.html)

http://images.ibsys.com/2005/0305/4256624.jpg

How can the media question the holiness of this pretzel? Heretics, every one of them!

:lmao:

[Mavtech]

What? Can't you see His evidence:

http://abclocal.go.com/images/wls_041805_mary5.jpg http://abclocal.go.com/images/wls_041805_mary3.jpg

"Car Washers Restore "Underpass Mary" (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/05082005_bb_underpassmary.html#)
CHICAGO-May 8, 2005 — A stain on the wall of a Chicago expressway underpass that some believe resembles the Virgin Mary is again attracting visitors.

That's because two car wash employees used a degreaser to clean graffiti and brown paint off the image during their lunch break.

A man had scrawled the words "Big Lie" in shoe polish on the image Thursday night. And on Friday, Chicago police directed transportation workers to cover the image with brown paint for safety reasons.

After the women cleaned up the image, onlookers say they again can see the Virgin Mary.

Hundreds of people have flocked to the underpass since last month to see the image. Some leave devotional candles. Many come to pray. Still others take snapshots.

State transportation officials say the stain is likely the result of salt runoff. "

:lmao:

A frickin stain under an overpass? Un-frickin-believable. The glass on the window here in Clearwater was one thing. But, this is ridiculous.

[Patchou]

there just wasn't enough time for all those mutations to occur between species/phylum.Did you read the Punctuated Equilibrium link from Wikipedia?

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Misconceptions

Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with saltationism and catastrophism, and thus mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism; it is actually more properly understood to be a form of gradualism. This is because even though the changes are considered to be occurring relatively quickly, they are still occurring gradually, with no great changes from one generation to the next.

This can be understood by considering an example: Suppose the average length of a limb on a particular species grows 50 centimeters (a large amount) over 70000 years (a geologically short period of time). If the average generation is 7 years, then the given timespan corresponds to 10000 generations. Thus, on average, the limb grows at the minute, gradual rate of only 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm / 10000 generations).

The theory is often referred to as an explanation for purported "gaps in the fossil record", i.e. the so-called "missing links". However, this confuses two levels of evolution. It merely explains the small jumps that are observed in fossil lineages within or between closely related fossil species, not the transitions between major categories of organisms. Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record.

[dalokgawd]

For those who keep saying that they need proof before they will believe in God, you need to go to dictionary.com and read this definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith) carefully... pay particular attention to the second definition of this word.

True belief in God, by definition, requires no evidence. So don't say that you need evidence before you will believe in God. If this is the case, then you will NEVER believe in Him.

Science requires evidence. Faith does not. The two ideas should be kept seperate, not comingled. This is particularly why I was mystified when Captal claimed there was more evidence for Creationism than evolution. IMHO, comparing the two is just plain silly. One is a belief based on faith, which by definition requires no evidence, and one is a scientific theory backed up by TONS of evidence.

Carry on.

[caveat depascor]

Does Pretzel Look Like Mary And Jesus? (http://www.nbc10.com/news/4256640/detail.html)

http://images.ibsys.com/2005/0305/4256624.jpg

How can the media question the holiness of this pretzel? Heretics, every one of them!

:lmao:
And I suppose my wife is a heretic for questioning the holiness of my undies too? :lol:

[Mavtech]

For those who keep saying that they need proof before they will believe in God, you need to go to dictionary.com and read this definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith) carefully... pay particular attention to the second definition of this word.

"Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"

Which is exactly right. Good point.

True belief in God, by definition, requires no evidence. So don't say that you need evidence before you will believe in God. If this is the case, then you will NEVER believe in Him.


I'm not going to say one way or another (which is why I am agnostic) but this is exactly one of my arguments on the subject. It's like someone telling you to believe something "just because". They tell you it doesn't require evidence. Of course not! Because we haven't seen any. It seems more like a cop out than reasoning.

[dalokgawd]

Mav haven't we had this discussion before about the nature of faith? Some people don't need it in their lives and some people do. I cannot imagine going through my life and NOT having faith that I am part of something bigger than what I can see and hear and touch. I need that faith in something greater than myself. For those that don't, that's fine. To each their own. But I just don't understand people who say they need "proof" before they will believe in God.

As I said the last time we discussed this... that's like telling your Mom you need proof before you will believe that she loves you.

[Captal]

Did you read the Punctuated Equilibrium link from Wikipedia?

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Misconceptions

Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with saltationism and catastrophism, and thus mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism; it is actually more properly understood to be a form of gradualism. This is because even though the changes are considered to be occurring relatively quickly, they are still occurring gradually, with no great changes from one generation to the next.

This can be understood by considering an example: Suppose the average length of a limb on a particular species grows 50 centimeters (a large amount) over 70000 years (a geologically short period of time). If the average generation is 7 years, then the given timespan corresponds to 10000 generations. Thus, on average, the limb grows at the minute, gradual rate of only 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm / 10000 generations).

The theory is often referred to as an explanation for purported "gaps in the fossil record", i.e. the so-called "missing links". However, this confuses two levels of evolution. It merely explains the small jumps that are observed in fossil lineages within or between closely related fossil species, not the transitions between major categories of organisms. Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record.


I see, just read it, I do remember Schroeder covering this, but I don't really want to do any more typing and I don't have any more unique thoughts of my own on the subject.

As for the claims of evolution as a fact- moths changing from white to black and all the fossils of species evolving. I agree with you guys- evolution is proven within a species. But that moth is still a moth, and a flower is still a flower, etc. But, as far as I know, there isn't any fossil evidence for evolution between phylum- from a fish to a mammal, etc. If there is please show me.

I think you guys are confusing faith and creationism. I know that faith doesn't have evidence, but I believe that creationism as a theory does have evidence. No one is really interested in hearing about it and I don't feel like typing any more books into a forum. Some good references are "The Science of God" by Shroeder as well as "A Case for a Creator" by Strobel. Both I found to be great and interesting reads that present valid evidence for creationism.

[Mavtech]

Mav haven't we had this discussion before about the nature of faith? Some people don't need it in their lives and some people do. I cannot imagine going through my life and NOT having faith that I am part of something bigger than what I can see and hear and touch. I need that faith in something greater than myself. For those that don't, that's fine. To each their own. But I just don't understand people who say they need "proof" before they will believe in God.

As I said the last time we discussed this... that's like telling your Mom you need proof before you will believe that she loves you.

Yeah, you're right. We have discussed this before. And I will say again that I never said I don't have faith. I also never said no one should believe in God. I have no problem with people believing all they want. However, I will say that it hardly is comparable to love from a mother. As you said, faith requires no evidence. So, people just "believe" that there is a God and that God loves them. No one actually hears it. But, I hear it every day from my mother and shows of affection are evidence of that. I actually do physically talk to her and spend time with her.

[Captal]

The idea that someone can even claim with a straight face that there is evidence for Creationism... let alone that there is more evidence for Creationism than evolution... just blows me away.

And that someone can look at the world and say that it all happened on accident blows me away. I believe our entire world screams DESIGN.

[Aluvus]

And that someone can look at the world and say that it all happened on accident blows me away. I believe our entire world screams DESIGN.
Well I suppose "accident" is a bit negativist. "Chance" seems more charitable.

[Captal]

Well I suppose "accident" is a bit negativist. "Chance" seems more charitable.

Every accident happens by chance. In fact everything happens by chance doesn't it? There's always a chance something will or won't happen.

[dalokgawd]

And that someone can look at the world and say that it all happened on accident blows me away. I believe our entire world screams DESIGN.
But you're forgetting one critical point... Nature always thrives towards balance. All the natural forces of the world promote this concept. It is hardly an accident... nature itself creates balance. If it wasn't for this simple fact, then everything would be chaos.

I'm not explaining this well. Nature uses feedback mechanisms to keep things balanced. Take the food chain. If there are too many predators, they will eat all the food lower on the food chain and then they will starve and die out. But when the predators start to die out, now the prey can thrive again because they are not being attacked by the predators. Once the prey begins to grow populous, the predators can now start to support larger numbers. Etc ad nauseum. Nature creates balance.

Your entire argument is that everything is too perfect to have happened by chance. But remember that we are dealing with a closed system that naturally favors balance. Thus, I don't think that your argument holds water.

[XXnarg]

Every accident happens by chance. In fact everything happens by chance doesn't it? There's always a chance something will or won't happen.Many things occur on purpose, like me eating the last cookie in box of Famous Amos chocolate chip cookies last night. It was not by chance; I intended to do it. Yes, one could say there was a chance I would go for the Girl Scout thin mints instead, but I chose the Famous Amos because I wanted something crunchier.

[Captal]

But why does Nature favor balance?

[Mavtech]

Every accident happens by chance. In fact everything happens by chance doesn't it? There's always a chance something will or won't happen.

So, when something does happen by chance, it's automatically assumed to be a design by a greater being? Isn't that kind of closed minded to take the very first thing without looking for more answers?

[mmathis]

There's always a chance something will or won't happen.

Didn't you tell me that landing 1 million tails on a coin "just won't happen"?

[Captal]

Many things occur on purpose, like me eating the last cookie in the Famous Amos chocolate chip cookie box last night. It was not by chance; I intended to do it. Yes, one could say there was a chance I would go for the Girl Scout thin mints instead, but I chose the Famous Amos because I wanted something crunchier.

But you could have changed your mind at any point and chosen the thin mint. There was a chance you were going to eat a thin mint last night. I guess you could also say there was a chance I was going to eat a thin mint even though I don't have any. :yummy:

Ick, I think we're digressing :wave:

[Captal]

Didn't you tell me that landing 1 million tails on a coin "just won't happen"?

Yeah. Realisticly it won't. According to probability there is a chance, however slight. But I believe that it will happen just like I believe a whirlwind will go through a junkyard and assemble a jumbo jet.

There's also a chance that I'm going to mutate into a kangaroo tomorrow. It's not going to happen though.

[XXnarg]

But why does Nature favor balance?One could say "It just does," or, "I don't know," and that should be adequate. We don't know the answers to many questions, but our ignorance does not thus prove divine intervention.

[Captal]

One could say "It just does," or, "I don't know," and that should be adequate. We don't know the answers to many questions, but our ignorance does not thus prove divine intervention.

Very true, it doesn't disprove it either though. I, of course, could argue that something so well designed was actually designed, but then I'd get more of the "it must be divine if we don't understand it" complaints.

[Aluvus]

But why does Nature favor balance?
Statistics.

A more complete answer is dependent on what aspect of nature one focuses on.

[Captal]

I just realized I'm really racking up the posts in this thread :)

[Captal]

Statistics.

A more complete answer is dependent on what aspect of nature one focuses on.

But why did nature originally favor balance? I'm assuming you mean statistics in the historical sense.

[XXnarg]

Very true, it doesn't disprove it either though. I, of course, could argue that something so well designed was actually designed, but then I'd get more of the "it must be divine if we don't understand it" complaints.Historically, the belief in dieties has changed to accomodate technology and science.

People worshipped The Rain God before they understood the mechanisms of evaporation, condensation, precipitation, and accumulation. They worshipped The Fire God before they understood rapid oxidation and the consequences of heat, oxygen, and fuel.

The current concept of a diety follows the tradition of conveniently explaining things we don't understand. Following the lessons of history, we have no more reason to trust the current theism than previous isms.

Question: If you had been born into a culture that worshipped The Rain God and The Fire God (and various other gods), would you have believed in them? Would your belief have been right?

[dalokgawd]

But why does Nature favor balance?
I knew I wasn't explaining it properly. Nature favors balance because it HAS TO. If the system did not favor balance, it wouldn't exist. If the system can only exist if it favors balance, then it MUST.

Does that make more sense?

[Captal]

I knew I wasn't explaining it properly. Nature favors balance because it HAS TO. If the system did not favor balance, it wouldn't exist. If the system can only exist if it favors balance, then it MUST.

Does that make more sense?

Yep, makes more sense.

[Aluvus]

But why did nature originally favor balance? I'm assuming you mean statistics in the historical sense.
I mean it in the mathematical sense. There are many cases where the most "moderate" outcome is the most likely. For instance, the populations of species in an area will tend to reach a sort of dynamic equilibrium over time, because the statistically-governed factors involved (environment, fertility rates, disease, etc.) will ultimately reach a balance. Unless outside forces come into play (which, themselves, are probabilistic in some fashion), in which case a new equilibrium is created.

This outcome is not specifically because the equilibrium point is desirable, or has been chosen by some individual. It's just how the math involved works out.

[Captal]

Historically, the belief in dieties has changed to accomodate technology and science.
....
Question: If you had been born into a culture that worshipped The Rain God and The Fire God (and various other gods), would you have believed in them? Would your belief have been right?

I see your point- because we don't complete understand the complexities of life and nature we attribute them to a diety. Valid argument, but that doesn't make the belief wrong until proven otherwise. Like I said, I believe there is valid evidence for creationism that a culture that worshipped the rain god or fire god didn't have. They had faith, what I'd call misplaced faith I suppose since we now know better. So is it possible my faith is misplaced? Sure, but I won't know until I'm dead :)

Would I have believed in those gods born into those cultures- most likely since those would have been the values instilled into me by my parents. I should say this though- I wasn't raised Christian (I did go to church occasionaly, but it wasn't an important part of my life)- I became Christian because I felt that something was missing, that life had a deeper purpose than me waking up, taking a shower, going to school and doing some fun stuff each day. I've found that deeper purpose. So I guess misplaced faith or not, it has made my life far better. And of course I don't believe it is misplaced, else I wouldn't believe :lmao:

[brbubba]

As for the claims of evolution as a fact- moths changing from white to black and all the fossils of species evolving. I agree with you guys- evolution is proven within a species. But that moth is still a moth, and a flower is still a flower, etc. But, as far as I know, there isn't any fossil evidence for evolution between phylum- from a fish to a mammal, etc. If there is please show me.

Its called a mudskipper. Its not a fossil, its a fully living creature, and if you need fossils I am sure there are tons of amphibian fossils, you just have to do little legwork to hunt them down.

I think you guys are confusing faith and creationism. I know that faith doesn't have evidence, but I believe that creationism as a theory does have evidence. No one is really interested in hearing about it and I don't feel like typing any more books into a forum. Some good references are "The Science of God" by Shroeder as well as "A Case for a Creator" by Strobel. Both I found to be great and interesting reads that present valid evidence for creationism.

I started reading "A Case For Faith" a while back and I found that it offered nothing new or compelling in the argument. Nor did he offer "proof" for the subject, quite simply because there is no proof.

If you want to prove creationism you can't couch it in terms of evolution. As I have proven through logic before, you cannot prove creationism by disproving evolution. In addition no one is arguing that evolution is not a theory, it is a theory, so is gravity, so is everything in science. This is vastly different than creationism which at best could be considered conjecture.

I became Christian because I felt that something was missing, that life had a deeper purpose than me waking up, taking a shower, going to school and doing some fun stuff each day. I've found that deeper purpose. So I guess misplaced faith or not, it has made my life far better. And of course I don't believe it is misplaced, else I wouldn't believe :lmao:

So what is that purpose? And why is becoming Christian uniquely associated with having a deeper purpose?

[Captal]

Its called a mudskipper. Its not a fossil, its a fully living creature, and if you need fossils I am sure there are tons of amphibian fossils, you just have to do little legwork to hunt them down.
So this mudskipper started as a fish and became a mammal?

I started reading "A Case For Faith" a while back and I found that it offered nothing new or compelling in the argument. Nor did he offer "proof" for the subject, quite simply because there is no proof.

This talks more about questions like "Why is there suffereing in the world" - A Case for a Creator is all about proof for creation and an intelligent designer.


So what is that purpose? And why is becoming Christian uniquely associated with having a deeper purpose?
Never said it was unique, I said it works for me.

[dalokgawd]

As for the claims of evolution as a fact- moths changing from white to black and all the fossils of species evolving. I agree with you guys- evolution is proven within a species. But that moth is still a moth, and a flower is still a flower, etc. But, as far as I know, there isn't any fossil evidence for evolution between phylum- from a fish to a mammal, etc. If there is please show me.
Captal I thought we already discussed this. Amphibians are proof that species can exist in both land and water. Why is it so difficult to believe that a species could go from living in the water, to being an amphibian, to just living on land?

[Captal]

Captal I thought we already discussed this. Amphibians are proof that species can exist in both land and water. Why is it so difficult to believe that a species could go from living in the water, to being an amphibian, to just living on land?

Because there is no fossil proof of that and that amphibian is still an amphibian. I thought everyone in here was talking about all the fossil evidence that was out there that proved evolution and yet no one has brought anything signficant up showing evolution between a phylum yet everyone is saying it has happened.

And you guys are getting on my case for evidence?

[XXnarg]

How Stuff Works (http://www.howstuffworks.com/news-item154.htm)

August 14, 2000

Scientists have long debated the notion that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Researchers at the University of Washington have recently discovered new evidence to support the theory; they found that a particular group of dinosaur had a unique bone structure also found in modern birds.

The researchers found that the coelurosaur dinosaur group's bone canaliculi formed in a randomly branching network. Bone canaliculi are submicron-sized channels that connect bone cells and blood vessels within the bone. The coelurosaurs' canaliculi took circuitous, meandering routes as they made connections between the bone cells and nutrients. The modern day bird is the only other known creature that displays this kind of pattern. Mammals show a much more regul